Ranjit Singh VS The State of Haryana

The present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeks to quash the conditions set forth in the order dated 08.04.2020 (Annexure P-2) by the Additional Sessions Judge of Panipat. This order, while granting bail to the petitioner, required him to furnish bail bonds worth Rs. 50,00,000/- with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Learned Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to pay an outstanding liability of Rs. 1,94,78,017/- along with interest, related to his firm, M/s Maa Karni Yarns, under the Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (the ‘Act’).

Further conditions included submitting his passport, joining the investigation, complying with all conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and refraining from influencing or threatening prosecution witnesses. The counsel for the petitioner argued that these onerous conditions essentially denied the petitioner bail, as he is financially unable to pay the outstanding amount.

In the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks the quashing of specific conditions imposed by an order dated April 8, 2020 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. This order granted bail to the petitioner but required him to furnish bail bonds amounting to Rs. 50,00,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Learned Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to pay an outstanding liability of Rs. 1,94,78,017 along with interest, a liability related to his firm, M/s Maa Karni Yarns, under the Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act). Other conditions included the submission of the petitioner’s passport, joining the investigation, and abiding by all conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C., along with a directive to not influence or threaten prosecution witnesses.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that these stringent conditions effectively deny bail, as the petitioner cannot afford to pay the outstanding amount. The counsel highlighted the presumption of innocence and argued that a court of competent jurisdiction must first find the petitioner guilty. Imposing such conditions, especially the directive to pay the outstanding amount, prematurely assumes the petitioner’s guilt. The counsel cited the Supreme Court judgment in Sumit Mehta vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (2013) 1 SCC 570, where the imposition of financial conditions in granting anticipatory bail was deemed inappropriate.

Conversely, the State Counsel justified the conditions, noting that a complaint under the Act is pending before the competent court. The petitioner was previously arrested in FIR No. 571 dated June 4, 2019, at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to fraud and forgery. The petitioner was allegedly involved in creating bogus firms, issuing fake invoices, and causing significant revenue losses to the State Exchequer. Given that the amount involved exceeded Rs. 5 crores, the offense is non-bailable under Section 132(1)(l)(i) and Sub-section (5) of the Act.

In summary, the petition challenges the bail conditions on grounds of presumption of innocence and the financial inability of the petitioner, while the State defends the conditions based on the serious nature of the alleged offenses and substantial revenue losses involved.

A petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the bail conditions set by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 08.04.2020. The petitioner, while granted bail, was directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 50,00,000 with one surety of the same amount, and pay an outstanding liability of Rs. 1,94,78,017 along with interest related to his firm, M/s Maa Karni Yarns, under the Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Additionally, conditions such as submitting the passport, joining the investigation, and not influencing prosecution witnesses were imposed.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that these onerous conditions effectively deny bail, as the petitioner cannot pay the outstanding amount. He emphasized the presumption of innocence and stated that requiring payment presumes guilt prematurely. The counsel cited a Supreme Court judgment (Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2013) which ruled against imposing financial conditions for bail. Thus, the conditions for bail in this case were considered unwarranted.

The State Counsel defended the conditions, highlighting that the petitioner faces charges under multiple IPC sections and the GST Act, involving bogus firms and fake invoices leading to significant revenue loss. They argued that since the amount exceeded Rs. 5 crores, the offense is non-bailable. The petitioner had been involved in tax evasion through non-existent firms, resulting in an evasion of Rs. 1,94,78,017. These conditions were deemed necessary to protect the exchequer’s interests.

Upon hearing both sides, the court found the condition of deposit onerous and set it aside. It noted that the petitioner has been in custody since his arrest on 06.09.2019, and the liability issue was already addressed in previous proceedings. The imposition of such a condition based on a prior judgment (Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs. Union of India, 2018) was deemed inappropriate in this context.

The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to quash certain conditions imposed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat, in an order dated 08.04.2020. These conditions, set while granting bail, required the petitioner to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 50,00,000 with one surety of like amount and to pay an outstanding liability of Rs. 1,94,78,017 with interest, related to his firm M/s Maa Karni Yarns under the Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Additional conditions included submitting the passport, joining the investigation, and complying with all conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C., without influencing or threatening witnesses.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that these conditions effectively denied bail as the petitioner could not afford the outstanding amount. It was contended that such conditions presumed the petitioner’s guilt prematurely, contrary to the principle of presumed innocence. The counsel cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, which dealt with conditions imposed under Section 438 in a case involving anticipatory bail where a financial deposit was also required. The argument stressed that imposing such conditions for bail was unwarranted and unjustified.

On the other hand, the State Counsel justified the conditions, highlighting the pending complaint against the petitioner under the GST Act. The petitioner was involved in fraudulent activities, including creating bogus firms and fake invoices, causing significant revenue loss to the state. Given the substantial amount involved, the offenses were non-bailable under Section 132(1)(l)(i) of the Act. The conditions were argued to be necessary to protect the Exchequer’s interests and ensure compliance with the law.

After considering arguments from both sides, the Court found the conditions onerous and set them aside. It was noted that the petitioner had been in custody since his arrest in September 2019, and the offenses were cognizable and non-bailable due to the amount involved. The Addl. Sessions Judge had based the bail conditions on a judgment from the Calcutta High Court, which had imposed similar conditions. However, subsequent modifications to that judgment were not considered by the Trial Court.

The Court highlighted that, in subsequent modifications, the amount to be deposited was reduced, and the conditions were relaxed to personal bonds. It referenced several Supreme Court judgments underscoring the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As a result, the Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to bail without the onerous conditions initially imposed, directing that only personal bonds of Rs. 50 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Addl. CJM were necessary.

The present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeks to quash the condition in the order dated April 8, 2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. The petitioner was granted bail under the condition to furnish bail bonds of INR 50,00,000 with one surety of the same amount and to pay an outstanding liability of INR 1,94,78,017 along with interest. These liabilities were related to his firm, M/s Maa Karni Yarns, under the Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Additional conditions included submitting his passport, joining the investigation, abiding by conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and not influencing or threatening prosecution witnesses.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the onerous conditions effectively denied bail since the petitioner could not pay the outstanding amount. The presumption of innocence should apply, and the conditions prematurely judged the petitioner as guilty. He cited the Supreme Court judgment in Sumit Mehta vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (2013) 1 SCC 570, where similar conditions were deemed unwarranted. In this case, the Delhi High Court had required a fixed deposit of INR 1 crore in the complainant’s name as a condition for anticipatory bail, which the Supreme Court found inappropriate.

The State Counsel defended the conditions, highlighting the pending complaint under the Act against the petitioner. The petitioner was implicated in multiple FIRs, including FIR No. 571 from June 4, 2019, for serious offenses like fraud and forgery. The State argued that the petitioner’s actions resulted in significant revenue loss to the state, making the offenses non-bailable under Section 132(1)(l)(i) of the Act due to the amount exceeding INR 5 crores. They asserted that the conditions protected the Exchequer and prosecution interests.

After hearing both sides, the Court found the conditions onerous and decided to set them aside. It was noted that the petitioner had been in custody since his arrest on September 6, 2019, nearly a year by the time of the hearing. The Additional Sessions Judge correctly identified that offenses involving tax amounts under INR 500 lakhs are non-bailable. The bail order referenced the Calcutta High Court’s judgment in Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka vs. Union of India, which mandated a substantial deposit for bail in a serious economic offense case. However, subsequent modifications to that judgment, which reduced the deposit and bail bond amounts, were not considered by the trial court.

The Supreme Court in various cases, including Sreenivasulu Reddy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Sandeep Jain vs. State of Delhi, and Sheikh Ayub vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, has consistently held that conditions requiring substantial monetary deposits for bail are unreasonable and should not be used to effect recovery from the accused. In Shyam Singh vs. State, conditions requiring ongoing payments for bail were also set aside. Similarly, Amarjit Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) found high fixed deposit requirements for bail unreasonable.

The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution should be upheld, and thus, ordered the release on bail without the onerous conditions. Personal bonds of INR 50 lakhs each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate were deemed sufficient, noting that the charge-sheet had not been filed and no extension for investigation had been requested. Therefore, the petitioner’s right to bail was granted without the previously imposed financial conditions.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: